stellar_set_options

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses that the output is unsigned XDR by default and subject to policy, but it does not clarify that no on-chain modification happens until the XDR is signed/submitted, nor what the policy fallback actually returns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences front-load the purpose and then add the key return-mode nuance. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the core operation and output mode, which is substantial for a builder-style tool, but with no output schema, no annotations, and seven parameters (including a nested signer object) it leaves policy semantics, required sourceAccount context, and post-XDR steps unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With only 29% schema description coverage, the description's examples partially compensate by grouping signer and threshold/weight parameters. However, homeDomain is never mentioned and 'flags' is referenced without a corresponding schema field, leaving the parameter model incomplete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Modify account options') and gives concrete examples (adding a signer, setting weights/thresholds). It is distinguishable from sibling payment/trustline tools, though it never names a sibling and mentions 'updating flags' even though no flag parameter appears in the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The purpose and the unsigned-XDR return imply this is for building a SetOptions operation rather than submitting or decoding, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative-routing guidance is given. The policy qualifier hints at conditional behavior without explaining the condition.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.